Jay Carney, whom some close associated and I gave him the nickname “Opie”, is leaving as White House press secretary. I give him credit in lasting longer than I thought in such a thankless job. As much as we mocked him for his job as news spinner and propagandist for the administration, he did do better than another press secretary we dubbed Sergeant Schultz for his use of obliviousness as a tool for deflection of difficult questions or issues.
When I was a child, I had no doubts what so ever that the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States would always make the correct decision, a decision that balanced the rights of the individual American citizen with the principles and Rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. Until recently, I still believed in the wisdom and guidance of the SCOTUS. But that belief and support was heavily eroded by decision that curtailed individual property rights in favor of corporate controlled politicians, of declaring corporations not only equal to an individual person but by their decision gave de facto greater rights to corporations over that of the common man, and the destructive and corruptive Citizen’s United decision.
The Supreme Court has betrayed America. Today the SCOTUS made a decision that has ended my belief that the Justices make decisions based on preserving U.S. citizens rights and preserving the Constitution. Today, the SCOTUS said the individual mandate in ObamaCare will stand. In other words, Americans are property– slaves to the whims of the corrupt, vindictive, and greedy politicians and bureaucrats of the U.S. government.
That’s right my fellow citizens, we’ve returned to bad old days of slavery except this time it’s not limited to one race or area of the country, it’s all of us. Worse, this new incarnation of slavery is codified in law and approved by the very Court that is supposed to help prevent the rise of dictatorship in our government. With this ruling, the SCOTUS has said the government can force any American to buy a product by including a “tax”, as the SCOTUS so quaintly justified their traitorous decision, as punishment for refusal to partake in what ever commerce they demand of you.
Is this the America you want? The next time a corporation or bank has financial trouble, do you really want the government to be able to order you to buy that corporation’s or bank’s product? Well, that’s exactly the dangerous precedent the SCOTUS made today. In the yes of the government, you are not a citizen, or an individual, you are property. And believe me, there are plenty of wanna-be dictators in our government who will look to use this decision to strip away Americans of their rights and freedoms. All one need do to see evidence of this is to look at the previously mentioned curtailments of property rights and granting supremacy of corporate personhood over the individual to see the path to a dictatorship in this country is fast approaching.
The question is this: will Americans stand for this or fight back against the forces within our nation that want to destroy it for their personal wealth and power? A part of me wants to give up and leave the country as it looks less and less like the nation of opportunity, change, and freedom of my youth. But a bigger part of me wants to fight back and reclaim my country and turn it back to a beacon of freedom and liberty and individuality. I for one, will fight, be it at the ballot box, in the courts, or, if it comes to this terrible last resort, in the streets against the rise of dictatorship in this nation. Despite the corruption of our government, I think America is still worth fighting for.
What will you do, my fellow Americans?
The only good thing about the decision by the SCOTUS: it revealed Obama’s blatant lie that the individual mandate was not a tax. The SCOTUS clearly stated it mandate was (even though they ignore basic economic principle that you are a not a participant in an economic activity if you chose not to partake in said activity). That makes Obama, Pelosi and Reid LIARS! Seems that Representative who called Obama a liar was absolutely correct.
I’ve been considering President Obama’s comments about the Supreme Court potentially overturning ObamaCare deciding if he was serious or making the usual political hay politicians are wont to do when they think a ruling bu the judiciary will not be to their benefit. I’ve come to the conclusion it was a bit of both. The fact that it was a bit of both only reaffirms my belief that Obama does not understand how the U.S. Constitution and the government derived from it works.
President Obama claimed that it was unprecedented for the SCOTUS to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Obviously the President has conveniently forgotten that last two hundred years or so in which the SCOTUS has acted as a judicial review of laws that may infringe upon, if not outright counter, the framework of the Constitutional government and Bill of Rights all Americans live under. That hardly makes the SCOTUS overruling laws passed by a majority of Congress unprecedented.
Disturbingly, President Obama tried to imply that the number of votes that passed ObamaCare somehow makes it exempt from challenge or judicial review; that the Legislature and Executive branches of the Federal Government were above any and all judicial process. That is the mindset of would be dictators, not democratically minded politicians. The President clearly does not understand that the United States is a Federal Republic in which democracy exists, but the “mob rule” is not allowed to trample those that were in the minority of a vote. This attitude is a primary reason the Founders established our three-part government: to establish checks and balances that prevent any part of the triad from being able to usurp control of the nation for their own ends and rule without restraint.
So I am left wondering:
- Was Obama playing politics, trying to stoke up furor amongst his base and the radical left?
- Does Obama truly believe the Executive and Legislative branch can make laws without allowing for redress by the public via judicial challenges and review?
As to playing politics, I have no doubt that is exactly what Obama was doing. Unfortunately all he did was harden both sides and perhaps alienated those on the fence concerned that this was an indicator for Obama’s nascent desire for greater power via larger government and perhaps even attempting to intimidate the SCOTUS into submission to his policies.
Does Obama believe the Executive and Legislative branch can rule without public redress? I believe he does. He’s always been a man who supports expansive overarching government.
However, in his support for big government, he has forgotten that since pretty much the founding of the United States the public has always had the right to challenge laws thought to be unfair, discriminatory, or otherwise detrimental to individual liberties, rights, and freedoms. The President forgot something important about the founding of this nation: the Revolution was in part response to the rulers (King George and his court) refusing to acknowledge the legitimate grievances of their subjects in the Colonies.
Curiously, Obama has no complaints about prior “judicial activism” of the SCOTUS. Perhaps he needs a reminder of just a few important decisions resulting from SCOTUS rulings:
- Miranda rights.
- Abortion rights.
- Contraceptive rights.
- Ruling anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. (I.e. Allowing marriage between races)
While I feel the SCOTUS has made several severely flawed decisions, especially of late, and no longer believe they always make the correct, let alone truly constitutional decision, I’ll take the opinions of the Justices musings over that of a blow-hard politician, even if he is the President, any day of the week.
Basically Obama is trying to stir up class warfare once more out of fear that he may lose the 2012 Presidential election by attempting to pit the “poor and middle class” against the “rich”. Somehow he thinks dividing Americans will save him a damaging Presidential campaign and that he’ll not have to explain the many failures and lack of leadership over his first term. The days of “Blame Bush” died with the 2010 midterm elections. It’s time for the President to take responsibility for actions and stop wasting time deflecting his poor decisions and policies on to others. If he can’t do so, then he doesn’t deserve to be President of the United States.
“We don’t envy success in this country. We aspire to it,” Obama said in his Saturday radio and Internet address. “But we also believe that anyone who does well for themselves should do their fair share in return, so that more people have the opportunity to get ahead – not just a few.”
‘And how exactly does the government taking successful peoples money and blowing it on failed government projects and stimulus either “fair” or give people “the opportunity to get ahead”? This just show’s Obama’s neo-socialist views that government can create jobs and prosperity through taxation.
While the plan would force millionaires and billionaires to part with more of their money, Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that if enacted, legislation reflecting Obama’s proposal would collect $47 billion through 2022 – a trickle compared with the $7 trillion in federal budget deficits projected during that period.
More evidence that this is simply Obama trying to stir up a rabble and ignite the extremist left-wing base of socialists and communists into getting out to support him while trying to imply anyone who is “rich” is somehow evil and bad for America. How about the government truly cut unnecessary spending, something Obama has no interest in since he obviously thinks someone else should have to pay for everything. This is extremely hypocritical considering how Obama uses none of his own wealth to assist his poorer family members, both in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Obama also renewed his call for ending tax cuts for taxpayers earning more than $250,000.
Read that as small business owners, you know the people who pretty much drive local business across this nation. So we clearly see Obama lies when he says he supports small business and then turns around and labels them “rich” in order to tax them. From my perspective someone who make $250,000 from their business is not “rich” whatsoever. I also don’t see how punishing them for being successful through taxation will help others have an opportunity to get ahead unless Obama thinks putting business out of work somehow opens up opportunity. That sort of thinking is simply asinine.
They should call the “Buffet Rule” the “buffet rule” because it isn’t about “fairness” it’s about fat government pigs wanting more taxes to waste on their pet projects while American’s suffer declining quality of life by these same pigs efforts to undermine commerce, opportunity, liberty, and freedom in the United States. Fortunately the so called “Buffet Rule” has about zero chance of passing in Congress, at least for now.
“I thought that President Obama’s statement to President Medvedev was disconcerting,” said Lieberman of Connecticut at a news conference with Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.).
It is rather disconcerting to have a U.S. President making such comments. It’s brings up a number of questions while bringing about annoyance about the President’s arrogance and suspicions over his motives. Primarily the question is this: What exactly is Obama going to be flexible on with Russians? Given his past distaste for missile defense in the past being flexible could mean he would attempt to persuade Congress to kill the program since the President can’t do so directly. Doing so would likely be unsuccessful, even if the Congress returned to being Democrat controlled, given strong support in Congress for the missile defense program across the political spectrum.
So while I think some anti-Obama groups are just making political hay over this, there is a legitimate demand for the President to explain exactly what he meant by his remarks. Not only to the American people but to our allies in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe which has been feeling abandoned in some respect by the Obama administration in the face of Russia’s re-emerging hostility and belligerence towards former Soviet and Warsaw Pact members.
Republicans blaming Obama for gas prices, though factors largely out of his control.
Funny, the lame-stream media was all about blaming President Bush for high gas prices during the 2008 campaign season inferring it was also somehow the GOPs fault back then. Of course the MSM ignored the fact that Congress was controlled by the Democrats then, which also contributed to the policies that led to unacceptable gas prices. (Not that I think a GOP controlled Congress would have been much better.) Now that it’s Obama’s turn to face popular discontent over the increasing bad economic situation (anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves) as cost of living increases for necessities far outstrip the reduced wages citizens have suffered as a result of the down turned economy the MSM are suddenly forgiving, with efforts underway to deflect blame elsewhere. Sorry, but no amount of deflection can stop the blame being placed on Obama and with good reason.
Here are but a few examples of the Obama’s administration’s policies that have helped drive up the price of oil beyond the usual worldwide market demands:
- A number of refineries have been shut down and permits for new ones have been severely curtailed.
- Obama closed most offshore oil exploration and drilling.
- Obama cancelled the Keystone oil pipeline from Canada.
Additionally, Obama and Congress ignored other efforts they could have done to help reign in prices such as enacting new regulations and restriction on speculators.
These are but three examples of the Obama administrations harmful policies towards the American people and economy. Granted, the Keystone pipeline would still be a couple years away from effecting oil prices in this country but the other two policies can be directly tied to prices as the oil industry adjusts to where, when, and how to bring oil and refining to the United States. Limited refining capability, especially with the specialty summer fuels season approaching, means even greater costs to the public for no other reason that Obama’s ideologically driven anti-capitalist socio-economic agenda.
As a side note, people should really look at the government’s own profits it receives from oil. You’d be surprised (or not). It’s one reason neither party is truly concerned with driving oil prices back down to a reasonable level for the public. They’re making money off the backs of the American people (again).
Regime Change 2012
Throw All the Bums Out!
I watched the State of the Union address and it mostly went the way I expected it. Nothing out of the ordinary. If anything, the speech was actually a bit dull, lifeless, and a bit scattered. Some points I found noteworthy were:
- Obama effectively backing fracking after killing Keystone oil pipeline. He does know fracking is one of the most damaging to the environment, right? So if he backs fracking then why kill the Keystone pipeline. A bit hypocritical for one espousing green jobs.
- The expected “fairness” issue, which is misleading and downright false, being used to push class warfare once more.
- No real mention of the President’s failure to repair the economy, nor taking responsibility for his failed economic policies.
- Another attempt at getting the DREAM Act put into place, forgetting somehow that he couldn’t even garner Democrat support for a bill rewarding illegal aliens while ignoring the needs of its citizens.
- The lie that ObamaCare relies on a reformed private market, not a government program. ObamaCare clearly creates a government program for those who’ve bothered to read it, such as myself. (That puts me way ahead of the politicians who voted for it without reading it.)
- The bailout of the auto industry is thanks to Bush, not Obama. It should have never happened. Failing companies should be allowed to fail, so new ones can come in and take their place. By supporting these companies they’ve actually hindered smaller companies (i.e. Arcimoto, Tesla, et. al.) from being able to enter the market without interference from the Big 3.
I have not decided whether to watch the State of the Union address by President Obama or not. I probably will, but I fear it is simply going to become a platform for Obama’s re-election campaign rather than a true statement on the status of our nation and his intended plans. Instead I expect to hear a number of the following things:
- Fairness. Or Obama’s version of fairness, which based on his record means what he thinks is fair, not necessarily what is actually fair. Another reference often used to refer to redistribution of wealth and raising taxes.
- Bolster economy and jobs growth by pushing for green jobs. This was tried and already failed. Solyndra anyone? How about the Fisker debacle? Better still, why kill the Keystone oil pipeline deal that would create jobs, especially given the presence of one pipeline already in operation? Anyone with half a brain knows we need to utilize all energy resources in this country.
- End income disparity. In other words, class warfare and demonizing successful Americans.
- Corporations are evil. Even as the President takes money from companies like GE that made record profits but paid nothing over the past few years.
- The Rich are evil and should pay their fair share. Which they actually do comparatively speaking when you look objectively at the amount of revenue they generate for the government.
- America’s policy failures are Congress’ fault. Ignoring of course complete Democrat control of the Congress for his first two years and his own lack of leadership skills.
- Tax reform. But is it really tax reform or just another stab at redistribution of wealth? How about a plan in which all Americans pay taxes, especially the 40% or so who currently pay nothing.
- The GOP is evil for not working with him. Of course, he’ll ignore the rage over his party abusing their control over the Congress to push things people didn’t want like ObamaCare (socialized medicine/individual mandate/new taxes/less care/less choice) and Stimulus (a payoff to unions and party supporters) without working with the Republicans. He’ll also conveniently forget that the Senate is still in control of his own party.
Obviously, I’m skeptical of the President’s speech. But then I’m skeptical of his entire presidency for good reason. Maybe he’ll surprise me.
In a statement issued by Senator John McCain, he said the move “is a devastating blow to job creation in northern Arizona, particularly in Mojave County.” McCain went on to say that the decision made by the administration was impacted by a campaign that placed the love of the Grand Canyon in direct opposition with a form of mining that occurs several miles from the walls of the Grand Canyon and in no way affects the quality of drinking water.
My only question is this: was the 20 year ban based on genuine environmental concerns or politics? I’m suspicious given the current administrations oft abusive and over reaching claims to authority over the business and people of the United States in recent years including interfering with legitimate business practices (i.e. interfering with Boeing opening a new facility) and private property rights (i.e. EPA threatening owners of property with fines for building homes of their private land).
While I am concerned about preserving Arizona’s natural heritage (far more so than the arrogant and ignorant President and Congress whom regularly try to undermine Arizona and Arizonan’s independent inclinations) I question the ban given the poor economy and the administrations active efforts to drive up the cost of energy in order to push a biased green agenda that is already leading to investigations such as Solyndra. I also have to question that if the uranium mining is as dangerous to the environment as they say, then why not have all the mining shut down? It just smacks of political pandering, especially given the administrations hostility towards certain forms of energy generations such as nuclear power.
“Today’s announcement further compounds a man-made energy crisis that has been planned and executed in Washington D.C. To push back uranium exploration in Arizona until 2032 greatly hinders our ability to meet the challenges of our energy future with clean, safe nuclear technologies. It also appears to fundamentally undercut the administration’s own goal of reducing carbon emissions.
To meet our nation’s need for energy we must employ all sources, including nuclear. This ban appears to be in direct opposition to the administrations claims that it wants to solve America’s energy woes.
For now I’ll try to ignore my inherent distrust of the Obama administration and give them the benefit of the doubt on this issue, but there is no way you can convince me that this was done for anything but political purposes for an election year in which the incumbent President could lose re-election.
Regime Change 2012
Vote All The Bums Out!
While the USDA attempts to assure the public that 2,4-D is safe, scientists have raised serious concerns about the safety of this herbicide, which was used as a key ingredient in “Agent Orange,” used to defoliate forests and croplands in the Vietnam War.
I’m not surprised in the least that Obama has once more sold out the American public to his corporate donors. This time he’s just being thorough by polluting the entire food supply, destroying organic growers and leaving future generations to suffer from cancers and deformations as a result of these dangerous chemicals and frankenfood. Just another reason to make sure Obama is denied a second term as President.